Wilson (TN) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Investors hold a significant 14.7% share of the single-family residential market in Wilson County, with a total portfolio of 7,028 properties.

The market is defined by individual ownership, with 4,754 properties (67.6%) held by individuals compared to 2,395 properties (34.1%) held by companies. This is further reflected in the number of landlords, where individuals comprise 88.9% of all investor entities (5,903 of 6,641).

Cash is the preferred method for holding property, with 5,239 homes owned outright, nearly three times the number of financed properties (1,789). This suggests a well-capitalized investor base less susceptible to interest rate fluctuations.

The investor portfolio is overwhelmingly geared towards rentals. A total of 6,833 properties are rented, accounting for 97.2% of the entire investor-owned SFR stock, underscoring the primary role these properties play in the local rental market.

The high concentration of individual landlords and cash-owned properties indicates that the backbone of Wilson County's rental market consists of small, financially stable operators rather than large, leveraged institutions.

Investors in Wilson County demonstrated exceptional purchasing power in Q4 2025, acquiring properties for an average price of $429,740. This was a staggering 27.4% less than the $591,822 paid by traditional homeowners, translating to a cash discount of $162,082 per property.

The price gap between landlords and homeowners has not been static; it widened significantly throughout the year. The 27.4% discount in Q4 is a sharp increase from 17.0% in Q2 and just 6.9% in Q1, indicating an accelerating ability for investors to find and secure undervalued properties.

While property values have appreciated significantly since the 2020-2023 period (from $392,084 to a 2025 average of $499,333), the Q4 landlord purchase price of $429,740 is notably lower than the yearly average. This may signal that investors are targeting properties requiring renovation or are capitalizing on a softening at the end of the year.

The consistent and growing discount suggests a sophisticated acquisition strategy among investors, likely involving off-market deals, distressed properties, or bulk purchases that are unavailable to the average homebuyer.

Investor activity accounted for 14.5% of the total market in Q4 2025, with landlords acquiring 74 of the 510 SFR properties sold in Wilson County.

The driving force behind these purchases were small-scale investors. Mom-and-pop landlords (owning 1-10 properties) were responsible for 55 purchases, representing 67.1% of all investor acquisitions during the quarter.

New entrants are a key component of this activity, with 51 new landlords purchasing their first investment property. This group alone accounted for 47.6% of all properties bought by investors in Q4.

In stark contrast, institutional investors with portfolios of over 1,000 properties played a minor role, purchasing only 5 properties, or 6.1% of the investor total.

This data clearly shows the market's growth is fueled by an influx of new and small landlords, rather than an expansion by large-scale corporate entities.

The investor landscape in Wilson County is overwhelmingly dominated by small-scale operators. Mom-and-pop landlords, defined as those owning 1-10 properties, control 74.4% of all investor-owned SFRs.

Single-property landlords are the largest single segment, holding 4,221 properties, which constitutes 58.3% of the entire investor portfolio. This highlights the decentralized nature of the local rental market.

Conversely, institutional investors with portfolios exceeding 1,000 properties control a much smaller but still significant share of 11.2% (811 properties). This demonstrates a concentrated ownership at the top end of the market, but one that is dwarfed by the collective power of small investors.

Mid-size landlords (11-1,000 properties) bridge the gap, collectively owning the remaining 14.4% of the investor-owned housing stock.

This distribution challenges the narrative of a market controlled by large corporations, revealing that the vast majority of rental housing in Wilson County is provided by local, small-scale landlords.

A distinct ownership pattern emerges when segmenting by portfolio size: individuals dominate small portfolios while companies control larger ones. Individual investors own the vast majority of properties in the smallest tiers, including 90.5% of single-property portfolios and 78.0% of two-property portfolios.

The transition to corporate ownership occurs definitively at the 11-20 property tier, where companies own 70.2% of the properties, surpassing individuals for the first time.

Beyond this crossover point, company dominance becomes nearly absolute. In the 21-50 property tier, companies own 95.0% of the homes, and in the 51-100 property tier, their share rises to 98.9%.

This clear structural divide indicates that while individuals form the foundation of the rental market, scaling a portfolio beyond 10 properties in Wilson County is typically done under a corporate structure for legal, financial, or operational reasons.

Even in the large 101-1,000 property tier, a surprising 34.7% of properties are still held by individuals, suggesting some high-net-worth individuals operate large portfolios without incorporation.

Geographic analysis reveals extreme concentration of investor ownership within Wilson County. Just two zip codes, 37122 (Mt. Juliet) and 37087 (Lebanon), account for a combined 5,520 properties, representing 78.5% of the county's entire investor-owned SFR inventory.

The zip code 37122 holds the highest raw count with 2,792 investor properties, while 37087 follows closely with 2,728 properties.

These areas of high concentration also exhibit significant market penetration. Investors own 17.2% of all single-family homes in 37087 and 13.5% in 37090, rates well above the county-wide average of 14.7%.

While some smaller zip codes technically have higher ownership rates, such as several showing 100%, these areas have negligible housing stock and do not represent the primary focus of investor activity.

This data indicates that investor strategy is not diffuse but is targeted at specific, high-inventory submarkets within Wilson County.

Transaction data from Q4 2025 shows investors are in a clear accumulation phase. Landlords were strong net buyers, purchasing 96 properties while selling only 40, for a net gain of 56 properties and a buy-to-sell ratio of 2.4-to-1.

This trend of net buying has been consistent, with landlords adding 300 net properties in 2025 and 325 in 2024, demonstrating sustained, long-term portfolio growth.

Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) are also expanding their footprint, not divesting. In Q4, they purchased 6 properties and sold only 1, showing strong acquisitive pressure. For the full year 2025, they were net buyers by a 2-to-1 margin (18 buys vs 9 sells).

Data from Q4 transactions reveals that institutional buyers are more likely to acquire properties from existing landlords. They sourced 33.3% of their new acquisitions from other investors, compared to just 9.8% for new mom-and-pop buyers, indicating a more sophisticated, insider-focused acquisition channel.

In Q4 2025, landlords were a significant force in the market, participating in 11.2% of all SFR transactions with 96 total purchases.

Small mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04) drove the majority of this activity, conducting 67 of the 96 landlord transactions.

A clear pricing advantage emerges with scale. Institutional investors (Tier 09) paid an average of $396,494 per property, which is 8.0% less than the $430,860 paid by new single-property landlords (Tier 01). This suggests larger players leverage experience and connections to secure better deals.

The source of acquisitions also differs by investor size. Institutional buyers were far more likely to purchase from other investors, with 33.3% of their Q4 buys coming from other landlords. In contrast, new landlords, likely buying on the open market, sourced only 9.8% of their properties from fellow investors.

This reveals a more insular, efficient market for larger players, who trade assets among themselves more frequently than smaller investors do.